Women’s head covering

Thanks. And interestingly, on a similar subject: It seems that the vast majority of the poskim in the last generation have pretty much banned pants for women, except for two that I saw that allowed them (Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein and Rabbi Yosef Henkin Zella”a). Does the rabbi have an explanation for why it is important for the poskim to ban something that is not really forbidden (in my understanding). After all, there is really no source for the ban. Or am I wrong. I would love to hear what the rabbi has to say on the subject. Thanks

Just conservatism.

Is there really no source for the prohibition???? Just conservatism????

“A man shall not wear a woman's garment, nor shall a man wear a woman's garment, for all who do such things are an abomination to the Lord your God’ (Pharaoh, if you go out) and look at Tractate Nazir Nazir Nat’ – to prevent the fear of adultery. And look at the Rambam”s custom of the worshipers of Ezra.
Likewise, there is natural modesty and there is no doubt that there is a difference between wide pants and a narrow and tight cut that aims to highlight the modest limbs, just as it is forbidden from the point of view of modesty to wear a tight shirt.

It's clear to every bar-b-que that once it's allowed, it goes down. For some reason, women (and men too) have a desire to cut their clothes short and expose their bodies to all eyes. And just as skirts and dresses have already been cut (far) above the knee, this is what will happen with pants. Until the day is not far away when we see women walking around in shorts and head coverings without a peep and some will tell the protesters that it's just “conservatism”.

Today, all over the world (at least in the West), women wear pants most of the time. Determining what is considered a man's garment according to what is accepted among Jews is a circular matter (religious women don't wear pants (modest) because it is considered a man's garment). If there is a concern about the slippery slope, then say so (a decree from our mind) and not a man's garment (torah).

Honorable Eritrea,
The prohibition “shall not be a man's tool”. It was before most of the Western world wore pants.
Therefore, it is funny to say that there is no source for the prohibition.

Even if things have changed in our days. There is still a slippery slope (very, very, very) and that is the point.

The entire discourse on the matter is tainted with ”innocence” (so to speak) and innocence is the last thing I would suspect of you.

In other words, your claim is that a man's and a woman's are determined by two thousand years of Torah and not by the situation in our time?
The slippery slope argument is in its place, but I will hold your hand to cross the bridge when we get to it. If the site here had a throat, then just repeating the discursive separation between what is right and what is slippery would make it snort twice a week.

Are you Eritrean or Eritrean?
Look again at my answer in simple Hebrew!!

A. It is funny to say that there is no source for the ban because there was a source from the beginning. (Does your honor understand what the meaning of the beginning is???)
B. If in our time the situation has changed – then there is a slippery slope. Therefore it is funny to say that it is “just” conservatism.
C. My dear. If you do not have children and are not involved in education. Then you do not know the bridge. I am deep inside from every possible direction.
Believe me, do not play with this fire!!! Many have fallen!
We are finished and will not finish. But for now we have exhausted…

I didn't understand what you think the prohibition is today. Not what the prohibition was once, nor "if in our times". Is this a prohibition from the Torah or a decree that the sages of the generation decreed out of fear of the slippery slope. Your answer please.

The issue is a bit long. But I will give you as an example the opinion of the author of ”Minchat Yitzchak” (2, 5) –
Pants are defined as men's clothing, and therefore even if many women get used to wearing pants, and even if there are noticeable differences between men's pants and women's pants, pants will still be considered a distinctly men's garment, and women will be forbidden to wear them.
This opinion, since women were forbidden to wear pants from the beginning, does not take into account the fact that today many women are accustomed to wearing them, because their custom is based on a mistake and a transgression. (And Gentiles certainly do not determine what constitutes a woman's modesty)
This means that according to him and many other good and good (in practice) words, we still prohibit from the law “men's tools” from the Torah.

B. Even if we assume that today there is no Torah prohibition, it is certain that on the slippery slope, slippery and slippery – there should be prohibition. And as I said, those who permit are among the puzzled. Because from an educational point of view, this is playing with fire. (And experience proves it)

C. I will admit that in terms of modesty, it seems to me (which is not halakhic at all) that it is better for women to wear long, wide pants (in some kind of modesty style) than with a miniskirt above the knee. (But this is another topic and I was even debating whether to write it)

Shabbat Shalom and Shavua Tov.

By the way, there are those who allow wearing pants in places designated for women only. Such as a woman exercising in a women's gym. Or at home in pajama pants (and there are those who also allow pants under a skirt on the street.)

But – “just” conservatism? (I ask you – does that sound relevant to you?)

A. Thank you. I really can't get into the issue, but I'll listen. All the issues are interesting, but there are three very uniquely boring topics: temporary lessons and modesty. From my limited experience with these issues, there are no pearls to be found under the pots and it takes effort not to fall asleep.
B. There are differences between a Torah prohibition and a rabbinical decree. First, in terms of the authority to decree today (as opposed to the idea that every woman can think for herself or that society should institute a certain custom – a matter not of halakhic but social). Second, in terms of the severity and implications. Third, with such decrees, I have a few more ideas that for some reason were not decreed. Fourth, as a matter of fact, I personally don't think that pants affect modesty in any way, but whatever. Maybe when I have a daughter I'll be more interested in these dry topics.
As for the rest, I don't know

I will refer to and add Milta Davidihutha to the fourth part of your answer.

As you know, the historical Samson and Job are the pair Balak and Balaam. And Balaam's famous advice in making the children of Israel sin is – “The God of these hates fornication” (Tractate Sanhedrin 2’)
It is customary to say that the actions of Balak and Balaam hint at the blessing of their names.
Balak – Daughters go short. And Balaam – Daughters go with a man. (A point to think about when you are interested in dry subjects)

Gematria and acronyms are not even dry.. And I heard behind the curtain that all of the above made a confession in the world of truth and from now on Balak is a young man to explain away problems. Balaam is a young man to understand the depth of moves. Sihon is a Jewish sign of wonderful innovations and definitions. Amalek is an Amaratz who spreads problems for himself. Canaanites enjoy every theoretical point Jews.

Not bad. Not bad.
You forgot the R for Eritrea (curious to know the origin of the nickname?)

[When the fork was raised. I imagined an African man walking with his jalabiya. And where in the sources did we hear that pants were an outer garment for a man, I don't know, dresses were an outer garment for everyone, and the daughters of Zion did not distinguish themselves except with jewelry and various wrappings. And from the Lord of the Rings I want great Torah knowledge, Amen, I wish 🙂 ]